--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot> ---
>As 48-core ARM chips have just been announced by Qualcomm,

I have been using a 48 core ThunderX which is an ARMv8-a for almost 3 years now
:)  So don't bring this up really.

Cilk+ is deprecated as nobody is using it and Intel seems like added it to GCC
and then disappeared.  


> I didn't want to look into cilkplus too deeply as to why we have different
> types, because (a) I don't care (b) we're probably going to deprecate
> Cilk Plus, no?

> And the more important question is if Intel is willing to maintain Cilk+ in
> GCC, or if we should deprecate it (and, if the latter, if already in GCC7
> deprecate, remove in GCC8, or deprecate in GCC8, remove in GCC9).
> There are various Cilk+ related PRs around on which nothing has been done
> for many months.

> As discussed on IRC, we will probably deprecate CilkPlus for GCC7 and remove 
> it
> for GCC8 unless someone is interested in maintaining it. So...committing as 
> is.

And then nobody from Intel stepped up.

Reply via email to